cmaldoon

First off: High Five for Bowtie, Metric is the way to go. It just works better.

bhodilee, MarkDaSpark, chemvictim, kylemittskus, joelsisk, klezman wrote: … one of the more extended, thoughtful, and calm debates this thread has seen in a while…

My take is that government’s role is first and foremost to protect as T. Jefferson once put it: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. There is a close translation of this in the preamble to the constitution as well but I think it is more succinct in the Declaration of Independence. The vaguest of those three terms is the pursuit of happiness and I take that to mean preventing tragedies of the common. I feel it is the government’s job to make sure that nobody is taking a unfair advantage of the resources at hand, and that everyone pays their fair share (a debatable term) for what they take from the common and what they leave behind in the common.

Marriage and abortion, and gun control are all border issues which is likely why they are so contentious. Abortion and gun control are both on the border of life and liberty while marriage is on the fringe of government control in the pursuit of happiness realm.

First short notes on gun control and abortion:

Gun control – The decision on this is purely a moral opinion. The government should protect you from getting shot, the government is also tasked to protect your freedom to bear arms. Where does one draw the line? It depends on the general moral compass of the country (and particularly those in power) and will change over time and with events.

Abortion – The decision of killing life is not at question here, THAT is murder. The question is: “When is it life?” That question is another moral one and once again depends on the moral compass of the country and I am ok with it changing over time too.

Marriage – This one isn’t clearly within the government’s sphere of influence like the other two are. One can make a decent argument that marriage laws (in some form) tie in our biological drive to couple (note: couple, no specification on genders or length of time) with other laws that allow us to make decisions for and about other people close to us. Having someone you choose designated to make choices for you in the event you are incapacitated is a pursuit of happiness issue. Having community property shared by two people who pooled their money and time together be left to the survivor is liberty and pursuit of happiness. All in all I see marriage on a governmental level as the government responding to the community’s want for a simple transaction that binds two people into a whole slew of contracts in one relatively simple step.

Now for the arguments about couplings other than the “Traditional” unrelated man/wife.

Gay Marriage – Up until the last 20 or 30 years, I would say that there was the argument about the bearing of children. It is within the governments rights to in the name of common welfare, encourage the production of children. Until lately, the only way to do this was sexual contact between man and woman. Now with in-vitro fertilization and all the genetic tricks that can be played, even gay male couples can have a child while preserving the full genetic diversity of the species. Now I can’t see an argument against it.

Parent/Child Relationships – There is little or no need for these relationships to be defined as marriages on a governmental level because many of the contractual ties due to a marriage are already in place as part of the blood relationship. There is an active interest under tragedy of the commons to prevent biological offspring of such a union because they are at greater risk of bringing out and propagating rare recessive traits which removes the potential impetus of the government encouraging the production of children from such unions. Lastly, as has been mentioned, the government needs to protect one basis of its tax base and many who would seek this relationship would be doing so for the tax benefits of such a union.

Multiple partners – Mismatched groupings are a potential tragedy of the commons argument (taking more than your fair share) but that’s a weak argument. For many of the contracts that marriage gives, the single point of contact/decision is important and having a larger group makes that difficult and leads to more issues than solutions. Lastly, it’s just a bureaucratic nightmare to deal with.

All in all, one can separate religion from government directly, but one cannot separate government from morals nor morals from religion (in religious persons... Who make up a majority of the population and you can't keep said people from government. Vicious circle.) so there will be some “informed” decision making as long as humans subscribe to religion.

-Edited last paragraph to link morals and religion only in religious persons and additional commentary.

kylemittskus

MarkDaSpark wrote:Dude ... only in certain places, and only for a certain time. Not everywhere was it that way. You also had the "Irish need not apply" along with the "Italians need not apply". But they didn't feel the need to protest and cause re-definitions.

And you see Obama trying to insert the state into religious groups policies more and more. Only if we remain aware of the problem, can we be proactive about it.

Klezman made the same argument I was going to make. And in fact, those that wanted to marry inter-racially did redefine the word "marriage." And I'm damn glad they did. You're saying "not everywhere" as if marriage has a universal meaning. I don't think your argument has defeated klezman's. My point was exactly what you say. Every word is made up. So why do you care so much if it's redefined? (This is really just an academic question since I'm fairly certain that we agree about the "fairness in gov't eyes" thing.)

As far as suing the church to allow a gay couple to get married, that should never happen. Will it? No clue. But if separation of church/state remains how it should be, it shouldn't happen. You can't mix Obama wanting to put state policy into religion and homosexuals desires to equal civil rights into the same pot. Don't punish one group for the sins of another.

Remember, I want separation of church and state! And I want that pendulum to swing both ways hard. My state should say nothing about your church and your church should say nothing about my state. Assuming neither of the two are promoting harm or something like sacrifices.

I think we agree with each other; we just haven't realized it quite yet. Allow churches to decide what to recognize as far as marriages. Give all one/one couples equal protection under the law. Call it whatever we want since words are inherently meaningless. Obama isn't really too great.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus

cmaldoon wrote:All in all, one can separate religion from government directly, but one cannot separate government from morals nor morals from religion so there will be some “informed” decision making as long as humans subscribe to religion.

I generally agreed with your post until here. You assume that morals come from religion. One who is not religious can still have morals. And one who is religious may not have them at all.

We had this argument (Sparky, chem, me, and perhaps others) about whether laws "informed by" religion, like "don't kill people fool" would have come about without religion. I argued, and chem agreed, that indeed they would. Sparky dissented.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon

kylemittskus wrote:I generally agreed with your post until here. You assume that morals come from religion. One who is not religious can still have morals. And one who is religious may not have them at all.

We had this argument (Sparky, chem, me, and perhaps others) about whether laws "informed by" religion, like "don't kill people fool" would have come about without religion. I argued, and chem agreed, that indeed they would. Sparky dissented.

Ah, you read in a connection that I left ambiguous. I did not intend to say that people without religion were also without morals. They certainly have them. I was saying that those people who have religion have morals that are generally heavily influenced by religion.

kylemittskus

cmaldoon wrote:Ah, you read in a connection that I left ambiguous. I did not intend to say that people without religion were also without morals. They certainly have them. I was saying that those people who have religion have morals that are generally heavily influenced by religion.

bhodilee

Dude, gay marriage is the same way! Exactly the same! I have major problems with outlawing this for religious reasons. I also would have major problems if it were legal and churches were forced to marry gay people. gift like that is EXACTLY why there is a "seperation."

From a purely State standpoint. I cannot conceive of a reason why two consenting adults of whatever ethnicity or sexual persuasion shouldn't be allowed to get married (and sorry, that word is diluted now, just get over it).

From a religious standpoint I can see lots of reasons not to do it, but that's why if you're gay and want to get married you'll likely need to get the State to perfrom the ceremony (not in every case of course, some churches are accepting of gay people).

Basically, unless you can give me a concrete reason that doesn't rely on the fallacy of "slippery slopes" for why gay people can't marry and has nothing to do with religion we're just not gonna agree.

Dumb question, If I get a sex change, can I get married? Seriously, I don't know how that works. Aren't you legally a woman/man if you have a sex change?

edit:HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH The word is FALLACY, but I typed PHALLACY which in terms of gay marriage is just Mistletoeing hilarious.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

cmaldoon

I did word that poorly, edited to clarify in the original post. I just wanted to make the point that morals will influence government and religions will influence morals for some/many people. The former is necessary, the latter is unavoidable.

Multiple Victim Shootings Study -- "The results of this paper support the hypothesis that concealed handgun or shall issue laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings."

And with this, I'm out of here. For good.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim

MarkDaSpark wrote:It's not just the Gay Marriage issue, it's all the anti-religion items that crop up. Religion is (has?) become a dirty word. Especially as evidenced by previous discussions here.

It's the new GroupThink model, especially accepted and urged by the Democrats. Religion is bad, liberal issues are good. And if you are against my liberal issues, you must be racist/prejudiced/stupid/evil/etc.

And really? "Claim" the word marriage? What our religions "believe" Marriage means? The word has been in use for millennia, and religions are only "claiming" it now? Do you listen to yourself?

And "each church can choose to or not to recognize religiously that couple's religious union"? If they don't recognize it as a "religious" union, it isn't one to begin with.

I have no problem with Civil Unions, nor that the gov't should give all rights pertinent to any couple (same sex or opposite sex) that are necessary for both. The problem I have (and IIRC, PS had) was that there was a re-definition of the term Marriage from it's eons old definition. Also that there is a slippery slope that eventually someone will sue churches to allow gay "marriages" to take place inside. So yes, there is investment in the proper usage of Marriage.

And by the way, one could say that ALL words are "made up". Intelligence for one.

And there sure has been a lot of discussion in between your post and my response. I just wanted to get this in.

Well, Sparky, you might or might not have taken your toys and gone home. But just to clarify, I do NOT hate religion, and it's not a dirty word to me. I'm very much in favor of us all being able to practice as we see fit, which includes refrain from practice if one wishes. If you think I and all other Democrats hate religion and are trying to squish it, that makes about as much sense as thinking that all the conservatives are bigots and want to kill teh gayz.

I'm not advocating forcing churches to marry people they don't want to marry. They don't have to do it. There was recent publicity about a pastor who refused to marry an interracial couple. He didn't have to do it. I couldn't force a Catholic priest to perform a marriage ceremony for me if I got divorced and decided to remarry. That's part of our handy freedom of religion. Freedom for you, freedom for me. Everybody happy.

If the eons-old purpose of marriage was the family unit and stable raising of children and passing on of property, gay couples can easily do that. Adoption, etc. I don't see a non-religious rationale for banning it.

kylemittskus

I firmly believe that I should have the right to carry a gun. And I think that it makes logical sense that most people aren't crazy. And if we let most people who aren't crazy carry weapons, if something does happen with a crazy person, the not crazy people could stop the crazy one. Will they? Not sure. But I'd rather be armed in that situation. Disagreements?

What I'm not sure about is regulations on weapons, magazine sizes, etc. As a libertarian, I don't like the gov't controlling a personal decision. However, I don't see a reason for a citizen to have a fully automatic, 200 round assault rifle. Thoughts?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon

I firmly believe that I should have the right to carry a gun. And I think that it makes logical sense that most people aren't crazy. And if we let most people who aren't crazy carry weapons, if something does happen with a crazy person, the not crazy people could stop the crazy one. Will they? Not sure. But I'd rather be armed in that situation. Disagreements?

What I'm not sure about is regulations on weapons, magazine sizes, etc. As a libertarian, I don't like the gov't controlling a personal decision. However, I don't see a reason for a citizen to have a fully automatic, 200 round assault rifle. Thoughts?

I'm pretty much with you on this one. Although I do not own a gun (other than a working replica 1861 Springfield) I want citizens to have the ability to own and carry guns. I see no reason for anyone to have a gun with a clip larger than 10 or 12, and no reason to have automatic weapons either. I don't think that such limits would infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. Hand me a bolt action hunting rifle and I can reasonably defend myself. That's all I ask for and that's all that is required.

ajrod27

I firmly believe that I should have the right to carry a gun. And I think that it makes logical sense that most people aren't crazy. And if we let most people who aren't crazy carry weapons, if something does happen with a crazy person, the not crazy people could stop the crazy one. Will they? Not sure. But I'd rather be armed in that situation. Disagreements?

What I'm not sure about is regulations on weapons, magazine sizes, etc. As a libertarian, I don't like the gov't controlling a personal decision. However, I don't see a reason for a citizen to have a fully automatic, 200 round assault rifle. Thoughts?

In the unlikely situation that you're in a shootout, like Columbine, with multiple shooters; 10 rounds is probably not going to cut it, which is the maximum magazine capacity in California. Limiting capacity gives an advantage to the criminals. Even if you never have to use it, you should be allowed to own a high capacity magazine.

I firmly believe that the reason fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines are illegal, is because they give citizens a fair advantage against the government. If police use fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, why not civilians?

I am a gunowner and would very much like to obtain a Carry Concealed Weapon permit(CCW), but Santa Clara County is notorious for denying applications. Population: 1,781,642 (2010) Civilian CCW's: 49 Percentage: 0.0003%
Numbers like this are the reason crazy's have the advantage. Those who do obtain the permit are company executives and business owners; you know, people whose lives actually matter, as opposed to the average citizen...

Even without a fully automatic weapon, a shooter can probably get off over 100 rounds before police arrive on scene. Instead of relying on police, which are constantly facing cuts these days, give civilians a chance to protect themselves. Weapon handling training is already in place for CCW applicants, all they need to do is stop denying soo many applicants.

mother

kylemittskus wrote:What I'm not sure about is regulations on weapons, magazine sizes, etc. As a libertarian, I don't like the gov't controlling a personal decision. However, I don't see a reason for a citizen to have a fully automatic, 200 round assault rifle. Thoughts?

This is really what you are afraid of?

(Being slightly more serious, this is the problem with trying to discuss this- non "gun people" have no idea what they're talking about. 200 round magazines really don't exist for assault rifles, and if they did they would be useless as you would have real problems keeping the gun pointed at anything as the center of mass kept shifting, and oh-by-the-way automatic weapons are pretty much illegal...)

Anyhow, I think the best outcome would be mandatory mental health and criminal background checks that somehow magically worked (which means an end to the gun show thing), a national ballistic registry, a 1 way registry (serial number -> purchaser), and a 20-30 round capacity limit. The way you get this passed is by making it non-severable and including universal reciprocity.

But more importantly, I think we need to seriously examine how we deal with mental health as a nation...
(all IMHO)

bhodilee

(Being slightly more serious, this is the problem with trying to discuss this- non "gun people" have no idea what they're talking about. 200 round magazines really don't exist for assault rifles, and if they did they would be useless as you would have real problems keeping the gun pointed at anything as the center of mass kept shifting, and oh-by-the-way automatic weapons are pretty much illegal...)

Anyhow, I think the best outcome would be mandatory mental health and criminal background checks that somehow magically worked (which means an end to the gun show thing), a national ballistic registry, a 1 way registry (serial number -> purchaser), and a 20-30 round capacity limit. The way you get this passed is by making it non-severable and including universal reciprocity.

But more importantly, I think we need to seriously examine how we deal with mental health as a nation...
(all IMHO)

Looks like a hot wheels racetrack I had as kid!

I think one teacher per floor of the school should be allowed to carry. The firearm should be on their person at all times in a holster that discourages someone easily grabbing it out. That teacher should have EXTENSIVE training on how to handle a firearm and more appropriately, how to handle a crisis.

Ideally, there'd be a minimum of one retired/former police officer teaching at each school and that person could carry.

We can't get rid of guns as they're a constitutional right. I doubt the founding fathers could envision what kind of guns we'd end up with, but it's protected.

Why this woman had guns when she had a kid with these issues is beyond me. I have a stepkid with Asperger's at home (which I've read this kid likely suffered from). He doesn't quite see reality as you and I see it. I don't think he's a danger to do this kind of thing, but his view of reality is...off. Because of this, I have no guns in my home. Not because I oppose them, but because I have a person in my house with absolutely NO impulse control and a history of "really, that's the choice you're gonna make" situations in his past.

Edit: Basically, I'm saying, I don't need the government to control guns for me, I'm quite capable of doing that on my own. Hence why I have none. Like most things, it all starts at home and with personal responsibility. I think everyone here gets that though.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

klezman

Call me an anti-libertarian Canadian if you must but I think this entire line of reasoning is backwards. Guns exist solely to kill other living things. I have not seen any convincing evidence that having more guns around reduces gun violence. No time right now to get into details, but I'd rather not have to worry somebody is going to shoot me walking down the street.

Edit: Before everybody yells at me for being anti-American etc, I think the problem is not necessarily best solved by prohibiting guns (although that wouldn't make me sad). The problem to me is why on Earth is American culture so violent and glorifying of violence. The solution to me seems to lie in that direction.

kylemittskus

klezman wrote:Call me an anti-libertarian Canadian if you must but I think this entire line of reasoning is backwards. Guns exist solely to kill other living things. I have not seen any convincing evidence that having more guns around reduces gun violence. No time right now to get into details, but I'd rather not have to worry somebody is going to shoot me walking down the street.

Edit: Before everybody yells at me for being anti-American etc, I think the problem is not necessarily best solved by prohibiting guns (although that wouldn't make me sad). The problem to me is why on Earth is American culture so violent and glorifying of violence. The solution to me seems to lie in that direction.

The problem with your argument is that we're already laden with guns. Do I want to need to carry a gun to protect myself? No. The reality is that there are currently somewhere around 300 million guns in the US. I'd love our violent paradigm to shift. What I know isn't causing it is video games, movies, and such, though; it's bad parenting, as BowTie suggests. I've seen enough in my 27 years of life to stop expecting id.iots to not act like id.iots.

When given a situation that I can't change, I need to work within that situation. I can't change the number of guns already in hands. And even if a total gun ban occurred, there's knives and bombs and maltov cocktails. In the incredibly unlikely event I'm trapped in a bad situation, I want to be able to defend myself and my family.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman

kylemittskus wrote:The problem with your argument is that we're already laden with guns. Do I want to need to carry a gun to protect myself? No. The reality is that there are currently somewhere around 300 million guns in the US. I'd love our violent paradigm to shift. What I know isn't causing it is video games, movies, and such, though; it's bad parenting, as BowTie suggests. I've seen enough in my 27 years of life to stop expecting id.iots to not act like id.iots.

When given a situation that I can't change, I need to work within that situation. I can't change the number of guns already in hands. And even if a total gun ban occurred, there's knives and bombs and maltov cocktails. In the incredibly unlikely event I'm trapped in a bad situation, I want to be able to defend myself and my family.

I understand where you're coming from, and agree to some extent. I just can't fathom that the answer to the threat of possible violence is with the threat of more violence. I'd rather not live in what amounts to a so-called society where I can't express my opinion for fear of somebody whipping out a gun.

mother

I stopped reading when it became obvious he has no idea what he's talking about either.

(BTW, for anyone who cares, the non-automatic "assault rifles" in question are the .003 incheas larger than the smallest caliber of commonly available weapon. They are less than half the caliber of a high power rifle or a large handgun, and as you know 1/2 the diameter means significantly less than half the area. And most importantly, how is that the slightest bit relevant?)

klezman wrote:I understand where you're coming from, and agree to some extent. I just can't fathom that the answer to the threat of possible violence is with the threat of more violence. I'd rather not live in what amounts to a so-called society where I can't express my opinion for fear of somebody whipping out a gun.

Do you know how quickly and easily a big dude with crazy tats could smash your skull and kill you?

So don't mouth off to people who might have guns if you're so afraid of it, act like everyone is a big dude with crazy tats. That actually sounds like a much more civil society...

kylemittskus

klezman wrote:I understand where you're coming from, and agree to some extent. I just can't fathom that the answer to the threat of possible violence is with the threat of more violence. I'd rather not live in what amounts to a so-called society where I can't express my opinion for fear of somebody whipping out a gun.

This may be ignorant of me, but I am already half-afraid of that. I, however, act like an ass most of the time anyway.

I also think that the best way to stop some Christmas sweater from hurting someone is by threatening to hurting them. Again, I'm not saying I want this; I'm saying we already have this. Hope for change, prepare for the same.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

I tried to think how any reasonable new gun restrictions would have prevented the recent tragedy, and I didn't come up with an answer. I honestly think further restriction would trample our rights, and for no reward. Tragedies like this are simply not entirely preventable. This guy tried to buy guns and he could not, so he stole them. No doubt it will happen again. We do not live in a risk-free society.

I understand when you question who would need a huge clip or certain type of weapon, and why would they need it? However, having individual freedom means that I don't need to explain myself to you, why I would want this or that thing, as long as I'm not using it unlawfully. For the record, I don't have any guns of any type, but I retain the right to become a gun nut if I feel like it later.

Why is American culture so violent? I'm not sure. The truth is though, we're a little crazy and we like it that way, by and large. Go to the South and we're a lot crazy and like it that way. And we HATE being told what to do. The fact that we hate being told what to do is plastered all over our history, for good and bad.

I guess my opinion is that there is no solution here. Guns are part of our culture, and along with that comes accidents and also the occasional rampage. It's a trade-off that we live with. It's possible the guy's mother could have done more to prevent this, but she's dead so we can't ask her.

kylemittskus

chemvictim wrote:I understand when you question who would need a huge clip or certain type of weapon, and why would they need it? However, having individual freedom means that I don't need to explain myself to you, why I would want this or that thing, as long as I'm not using it unlawfully. For the record, I don't have any guns of any type, but I retain the right to become a gun nut if I feel like it later.

Can I build and stockpile bombs, then? What about chemical agents? I'm not disagreeing with the slippery slope argument as you know I hate it. I do think that there needs to be a line drawn, though. And it will, no doubt, be an arbitrary one. I don't know where I am comfortable with the line being drawn.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

kylemittskus wrote:Can I build and stockpile bombs, then? What about chemical agents? I'm not disagreeing with the slippery slope argument as you know I hate it. I do think that there needs to be a line drawn, though. And it will, no doubt, be an arbitrary one. I don't know where I am comfortable with the line being drawn.

chemvictim

I'm cringing at this argument that if more people (like teachers!) had guns, it would be better. We get these occasional stories about how some armed citizen stopped a gunman. The story of the day involved an off-duty police officer. That's great, but how many gun owners are actually trained and practice often enough to be able to take out an armored gunman in a high-pressure chaotic situation? Does your concealed carry class really, really prepare you for that? The average person is not Jason Bourne, you know? After the theater shooting, some guy in my town carried his gun to the theater for protection and he accidentally shot himself in the ass. Thankfully he only shot himself. Does the potential for a heroic act outweigh the potential for accidents?

I'm not saying that people should not be allowed to carry, only wondering if arming more people is really a viable solution.

cmaldoon

kylemittskus wrote:I do think that being armed in a horrible situation > not being armed. I don't buy the "you'll shoot the wrong person and do more harm than good" argument.

The series of questions that brings up is:
Would an increase in gun availability help or hurt the chances of any person being in a "horrible situation"?
Would an increase in gun availability help or hurt the chances of that person getting out of a "horrible situation"?
Which one of these is weighted greater?
How about those people who cannot or choose not to carry a gun and their chances of being victims of a "horrible situation"?

Short of 5% of the population having and using concealed carry permits, I don't think that it would help in a situation like the one in Newtown. I think that if the shooter had only 10 rounds per magazine max that a few more kids would be alive today. Would it have stopped the massacre, NO. Would it have saved lives, LIKELY. Does it infringe on gun rights, YES. Does it infringe on constitutionally guaranteed gun rights? I would say No given that they didn't have many if any repeaters or even breach loaders in the late 1700s and it would not be taking away guns.

mother

cmaldoon wrote:The series of questions that brings up is:
Would an increase in gun availability help or hurt the chances of any person being in a "horrible situation"?
Would an increase in gun availability help or hurt the chances of that person getting out of a "horrible situation"?
Which one of these is weighted greater?
How about those people who cannot or choose not to carry a gun and their chances of being victims of a "horrible situation"?

Short of 5% of the population having and using concealed carry permits, I don't think that it would help in a situation like the one in Newtown. I think that if the shooter had only 10 rounds per magazine max that a few more kids would be alive today. Would it have stopped the massacre, NO. Would it have saved lives, LIKELY. Does it infringe on gun rights, YES. Does it infringe on constitutionally guaranteed gun rights? I would say No given that they didn't have many if any repeaters or even breach loaders in the late 1700s and it would not be taking away guns.

Hogwash. On all of it.

And we still don't know enough about what happened to make any meaningful comments on what might or might not have helped.

PS Your second amendment is the ultimate check against the government who has a military and police. If anything handguns/sidearms are not protected but artillery pieces, fully automatic machine guns, and MANPADs are.

cmaldoon

And we still don't know enough about what happened to make any meaningful comments on what might or might not have helped.
.

We know that the shooter had 3 guns, 1 rifle and 2 pistols. It has been said that the majority of the shots came from the rifle which had a 30 round clip and he had more clips with him. I think that it is reasonable to carry logic forward that having smaller clips would have lengthened the amount of time it would have taken the shooter to fire the number of rounds he did. From that we can also reasonably make the assertion that if the outcome would have changed in any way, that it would most likely have resulted in fewer deaths.

The next question becomes: Why does anyone need more than 10 rounds in their clip and does the benefits outweigh the negative impacts?

Clip sizes are just one small part of a larger set of fixes that would need to take place though.

klezman

Meh, to me this stuff is all in the noise. Arming people to the teeth is not a sane answer in my books. Unless we do it like Switzerland - everybody is required to be in the army, everybody is required to own a gun, said gun is required to be kept at home and not ever used outside.

This is the only western country that has a serious gun violence problem.

There are more regulations surrounding OSHA standards for a ladder at a school than there are restrictions on buying a firearm. Does that seem logical?

kylemittskus

klezman wrote:There are more regulations surrounding OSHA standards for a ladder at a school than there are restrictions on buying a firearm. Does that seem logical?

Of course not. The gov't is rarely logical. However, illogical gov't policy doesn't deem the issue itself easily handled by saying "no." Just say no doesn't work for drugs and it can't work for guns. America is already "armed to the teeth." 300 million guns in the possession of Americans. We can't get rid of guns. There is no way to do it. We need to change the way we deal with them, though. And whatever we're currently doing isn't working.

Should we regulate more? Absolutely. However, I don't think the people going to gun shows and spending big bucks on what amounts to a hobby are the ones causing the violent shootings.

I guess what I'm saying is, guns don't kill people...

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother

No, in fact we don't know that with any certainty. We just know that the same media asswipes who got EVERYTHING else wrong said those things and then said other people said them.

It's ALL speculation and conjecture even today.

It has been said that the majority of the shots came from the rifle

See above...

which had a 30 round clip and he had more clips with him. I think that it is reasonable to carry logic forward that having smaller clips would have lengthened the amount of time it would have taken the shooter to fire the number of rounds he did. From that we can also reasonably make the assertion that if the outcome would have changed in any way, that it would most likely have resulted in fewer deaths.

*First, major thing if you ever want anyone who knows ANYTHING about guns to take you serious- it's a magazine not a "clip"*
I seriously doubt the 2-3 seconds to change mags while you have 2 other weapons (as was reported, right?) would have changed anything. If there is someone shooting back at you, things are different. A buncha kindergartners are not going to take down a gunman while he changes magazines. It's not the changing of the mags that is the problem its the-

The next question becomes: Why does anyone need more than 10 rounds in their clip and does the benefits outweigh the negative impacts?

herculean pain in the ass of loading magazines that make 10 round mags a pain. Big magazines are simply more convenient for all of the lawful uses of a gun.

Seriously.

And since 99.99999999999999999999998% of all bullets fired from a gun are done so lawfully, that makes a huge difference.

That said, I think most people are fine with a 30rd limit as a compromise.

Remember assault rifles and all other select fire (read automatic or burst capable) weapons are highly regulated and for all intents and purposes just don't exist in civilian hands (legal ones cost 10's of thousands of dollars).

Clip sizes are just one small part of a larger set of fixes that would need to take place though.

The thing is that "clip size restrictions" (mag...) wouldn't have had much of an effect if in fact the guy was using 30rd mags vs a bunch of 10's. I don't think he was the type to declare loading them 'too tedious' and just given up.

I really wish people could at least try to wait until we have some real solid facts to work with, and then actually worried abotu how we could prevent this from happneing in the future. Instead we have this kind of asshattery.

Small magazines definitely wouldn't have helped as much as having allowed specially trained teachers and administrators to carry concealed weapons on school grounds, or having an armed cop at the school.

Or, you know, getting this guy help before he stole moms guns and took almost 30 lives...

ajrod27

cmaldoon wrote:It has been said that the majority of the shots came from the rifle which had a 30 round clip and he had more clips with him. I think that it is reasonable to carry logic forward that having smaller clips would have lengthened the amount of time it would have taken the shooter to fire the number of rounds he did. From that we can also reasonably make the assertion that if the outcome would have changed in any way, that it would most likely have resulted in fewer deaths.

Your logic would make sense if the shooter was a law abiding citizen and chose to use only 10 round magazines. As long as manufactures are producting high capacity magazines, people will find a way to aquire them. Given the benifit of the doubt, even if the shooter did use 10 round magazines, he would just have to carry more magazines; it only takes a second to swap a magazine, so I'm not confident that would result in fewer deaths over such a short timeframe.

I believe the problem has less to do with the tool being used, and more to do with the person using the tool; just like the infamous saying, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Take away one tool and they'll just find another...

We need to focus more on the psychology of the people committing the crimes. That might give us some insight on how to prevent, or at least reduce, the occurence of these outbreaks.

The increase in time it takes to fire off any large number of rounds with 10 round mags as opposed to 30 round ones is staggering. That time is time for first responders to arrive, time for victims to flee, time for heroes to jump the guy. Even if there is an armed cop in the building, he/she is going to appreciate the increased downtime because all he/she will have is a pistol and this guy had a rifle and body armor.

One might say that he would simply change guns if he needed to instead of reloading. Well, then he had pistols which were unlikely to have 30 round magazines (and could likewise be limited) and any time he is firing said pistol he is not reloading the rifle.

3 seconds may be on the high side, but doing it in significantly under 2 seconds, on average, with multiple clips on your person would be difficult.

I am not trying to make the point that limiting magazines to 10 rounds solves the problem or prevents the shooting. Just that it could have lessened the damage significantly.

If casual shooters are to lazy to reload every 10 rounds, they are too lazy to own a gun as far as I am concerned.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.